Sebastian 04.03.2006 22:04 |
Anybody's got comments on the audio? Is it a good mix? Thanks |
Adam Baboolal 05.03.2006 07:38 |
It's not a new mix. It's a remastering. And yes, it's the best remaster to go for in ANATO's case. Peace, Adam. |
kdj2hot 05.03.2006 18:47 |
Adam Baboolal wrote: It's not a new mix. It's a remastering. And yes, it's the best remaster to go for in ANATO's case. Peace, Adam.Um, genius when you remaster something you re-MIX it with updated technology so right now I'm thinking it's some what ignorant to say it's not a new mix because technically it is as well as being a new master. |
Wilki Amieva 05.03.2006 19:20 |
No comment. ...Except that you have NO IDEA. |
Adam Baboolal 05.03.2006 21:02 |
kdj2hot wrote:Oh dear... Just do a search on the term mastering and you'll actually find it has nothing to do with remixing anything.Adam Baboolal wrote: It's not a new mix. It's a remastering. And yes, it's the best remaster to go for in ANATO's case. Peace, Adam.Um, genius when you remaster something you re-MIX it with updated technology so right now I'm thinking it's some what ignorant to say it's not a new mix because technically it is as well as being a new master. Peace, Adam. |
deleted user 06.03.2006 04:52 |
The new sound is amazing, you can clearly hear the changes :-) |
kdj2hot 06.03.2006 07:39 |
Adam Baboolal wrote:Honey, I think you need to follow your own device:kdj2hot wrote:Oh dear... Just do a search on the term mastering and you'll actually find it has nothing to do with remixing anything. Peace, Adam.Adam Baboolal wrote: It's not a new mix. It's a remastering. And yes, it's the best remaster to go for in ANATO's case. Peace, Adam.Um, genius when you remaster something you re-MIX it with updated technology so right now I'm thinking it's some what ignorant to say it's not a new mix because technically it is as well as being a new master. "A master recording is an original recording, from which copies may be made. When recording on to magnetic tape, the original tape is known as the master tape. A multitrack recording master tape or disk, on which productions are developed (or captured, in a live session) for later mixing, is known as the multitrack master, while the tape or disk holding a mix (mono, stereo, or Surround) is called a mixed master. It is standard practice to make a copy of a master recording, known as a safety copy, in case the master is lost or damaged." ..... "Better processing choices can be used. Better prints can be utilized, with sound elements remixed to 5.1 and obvious print flaws digitally corrected. " In case you and that WIlki guy are too slow to comprehend let me highlight the key point for you. To re-MIX it in 5.1 they would have to had used (and did use from the making of) the Multi track master which by definition is used for further mixing. Which they did, re-mix it in 5.1, genius. The audio on the dvd-a is another mix. sources: link link |
Adam Baboolal 06.03.2006 08:02 |
You're mixed up, methinks. No pun intended! This link will hopefully help you understand what the process actually entails - link I'd let you think what you think, but since you're on the forum posting this for all to see, I felt it important that this be corrected before anyone else starts thinking you're right. The CD music was NOT remixed. And neither was the DVD music. They were both newly remastered for the ANATO 25th anniversary. Peace, Adam. |
Sebastian 06.03.2006 15:04 |
Actually the reason I'm asking is because I received the question. So without the kind permisson from the person who sent it I'll quote: "I have listened almost all audio remasters except the 30Th anniversary edition; the last two ANATO audio remasters have been transferred to 24 bits (Japanese 2001-2004 EMI-Toshiba and 30th anniversary editions). Those 24 bits audio remasters enhances the soundstage a lot (term soundstage means that when listening, the musicians sound as if they are out in front of you), but they as well enhances the faults, e.g. the 2004 (2001) Japanese EMI-Toshiba remaster sounds awful in most percussions and in some drums parts, distortion is present due to it wasn?t restored, it was only transferred to 24 bits. I already know that 30Th ANATO edition was restored but I want to be sure before buying because I have bought ANATO six times (two on vinyl and four on cd ). The question is: is the ANATO 30th anniversary edition (in stereo mode) distortion-free on percussions and drums?????? Other things to be revised would be: Not excessive filtering as 1998 EMI-Toshiba edition, that ruined Freddie´s voice !!! Clean sound (not hiss noise) Natural sound (not too brilliant sound) Volume level (high is desirable obviously without distortion)" Thanks from both of us. |
kdj2hot 06.03.2006 15:58 |
Adam Baboolal wrote: You're mixed up, methinks. No pun intended! This link will hopefully help you understand what the process actually entails - link I'd let you think what you think, but since you're on the forum posting this for all to see, I felt it important that this be corrected before anyone else starts thinking you're right. The CD music was NOT remixed. And neither was the DVD music. They were both newly remastered for the ANATO 25th anniversary. Peace, Adam.I don't know you might really be slow. I was partly joking the last post but really might be a little slow because the link you posted pretty much said a master is the last step when making an album and that to get to that step one would have to re-mix the album. I think you're a little confused about the definition of re-mix, I'm not talking about the those little fan mixes you people do. I'm talking about a mix that attempts to achieve what was on the original release on a new medium, IT's pretty simple to me... Also, I don't own the dvd-a from either anato releases but I've read on here that the mix is a little different than the 2002 one from the dvd in the 2 disk set from last yr. |
Adam Baboolal 06.03.2006 20:34 |
The reason I posted that was due to the question posed in this thread to begin with, Kd. It's about the RE-mastering that has taken place, i.e. is it any good? And I believe it's the best ANATO has sounded on cd. People like John S Stuart will advise, as will I, they (Queen) don't need to remix anything because there is a master mix sitting ready for mastering any time they want it. It's there because it represents the work they put into the album mix back in 1975. That's the whole point. To retain what the album sounded like, then and now. Therefore, the original stereo mix never needs rebuilt unless need-be. Peace, Adam. |
goinback 07.03.2006 01:36 |
But that's what they've done: The original stereo mix HAS been rebuilt, which probably took work that boggles the mind. They've gained a generation this way because they've gone back to the original multi-track master and mixed a new stereo master DIGITALLY from the original multi-track (rather than via analog in 1975). Part of the problem of putting The Prophet's Song and God Save The Queen in 5.1 before was that they only had the stereo master with 2 channels of audio. Since they recently found the multi-track masters they were able to make a real 5.1 mix, and were able to remix the multitracks again into 2-channel stereo. So even the normal stereo CD has gained one tape generation in quality. To sum up: In the past most people have made "digitally remastered" CDs using digital copies of the analog stereo masters. Now they're going one generation back PAST the analog stereo masters and making new DIGITAL stereo masters from the multitrack tapes (which involves mixing all the tracks to two stereo tracks...and since it was mixed once in 1975, they're now mixing it for a second time - AKA remixing - though they're attempting to mix it EXACTLY like it was mixed the first time). So they've mixed all the separate opera voices in Bo Rhap together again, rather than simply using the mix they already made in 1975. Of course the problem is that some instrument and vocal levels might not sound balanced exactly as they were before so it's a painstaking process.... |
Sunshine 07.03.2006 08:22 |
It sounds marvellous but can you hear the difference at a normal stereo installation? I mean, I have a Marantz amplifier and B&W speakers, no surround or anything. I think I have a medium kind of set, not bad but also not amazing. Can you hear the difference or do you also need state of the art equipment? I have the 1993 remaster, is it helpful to buy the new version? |
Togg 07.03.2006 08:45 |
This may help to clear this up, it is from Justin on Brian's site answering some guys question about a distortion on the Bo Rap mix. "I have listened specifically to the section of music you mentioned and I can hear the problem as you describe it. I would guess this distortion is caused by an imperfect electrical connection in a switch or patch cable during the mix because it is not the whole mix that is distorting - just the left side of the drum kit I think. I don't believe the problem is on the multi-track recording because I don't hear it on the karaoke mix. The surround mix on the the ANATO DVD-A doesn't have this problem and is as clean as you will hear Bohemian Rhapsody. The stereo mix on the same DVD-A however, is the original mix so it shares all the same distortions, but in more detail than you've ever heard them before! This type of distortion is not fixable in any mastering process (yet). The only versions without the distortion are both remixes from the multitrack." Cheers Justin |
Togg 07.03.2006 08:49 |
Once again for clarity, again from Justin. The final result of the band's work in the studio would have been a "Stereo Flat Mix Master" which contains the entire album mixed and sequenced with the right gaps and cross-fades etc. This is what they would have delivered to be mastered (or cut) on to vinyl. The mastering engineer would then have made a copy (called a "Production Master") of this with additional tone and level changes as desired or requested and this would be the version reproduced on the original records and CD's. When re-masters are done it is desirable to go back to the Stereo Flat Mix Masters to make new tone and level adjustments dictated by current tastes or technology. This is what happened in in the early 1990's when Kevin Metcalfe re-mastered the entire catalogue for the "Digital Re-Master Series", and again in 1998 and 2001 for Hollywood and Toshiba EMI. |
Sebastian 07.03.2006 09:49 |
What about the percussion? Is it distorted as in other remasters? And by the way my question wasn't wrong. I said "Is it a good mix?", implying that it's a mix. And of course it's a mix. I didn't say "new mix" or "re mix", I said "mix", without specifying whether it was the same mix or a different one ;) |
Togg 07.03.2006 10:25 |
Sebastian wrote: What about the percussion? Is it distorted as in other remasters? And by the way my question wasn't wrong. I said "Is it a good mix?", implying that it's a mix. And of course it's a mix. I didn't say "new mix" or "re mix", I said "mix", without specifying whether it was the same mix or a different one ;)it is not the whole mix that is distorting - just the left side of the drum kit I think. I don't believe the problem is on the multi-track recording because I don't hear it on the karaoke mix. The surround mix on the the ANATO DVD-A doesn't have this problem and is as clean as you will hear Bohemian Rhapsody. Is that what you meant? And KD, before you shoot your mouth off again, try to understand the process, Adam is correct. see my post above. |
kdj2hot 07.03.2006 11:28 |
<b><font color = "crimson">ThomasQuinn wrote: kdj2hot: A word of advice; if there's ANYONE on here who knows what he's talking about regarding audio processing, mixing, mastering, etc., it's Adam. I'll spell it out for you simply, and I'm not going to bother with any niceties, seeing as your behaviour was highly impolite in the first place. Part of the MASTERING PROCESS involves taking the SEPARATE TRACKS of a MIXED master tape and equalizing them, adding stereo (or surround) effects, removing glitches, reducing analogue or digital noise (such as in extremely high or low parts of the spectrum, or in some Wall Of Sound-cases), etc. So, can you grasp that, or should I explain it to you like you were three?Obviously you can't grasp it because you said absolutely nothing. They did the 5,1 mix from the original multi tracks. Get off you high horse you're arguing about nothing. Maybe you're confused because you got the idea of a remix as being something like the Bicycle Race remix from the hollywood release. I like the fact that you said absolutely nothing and then finished it with "can you grasp that" like let off like a Stephen HAwkins type lecture or something. That was funny lol. Wait you did say something, something which kind ofd sounds stupid, no offense. Each multi track placed together as liked equals the master, in the sense that it's being ddiscussed in this thread. If you change the level of something, make the drums more prominent, etc. That's another mix. I guess you can argue that each track from a song is a "master track" but that's like grasping at straws. Ofcourse they're the master of that particular track because I doubt that they would be able to mix the track in itself again. The tracks placed together is a mix... wait a minute Thomas, your post was so out of it that I'm responding to something I never even argued about. I never questioned anyone's definition of a master. I just pointed out that to get to a new master you would have to mix it the track again. In definition that's what a new or remaster is. If it's not it would'nt be a new master. Now if they just take the master (the "multi track masters" as you called them, placed together) and make tapes directly from that instead of making tapes from copies of copies then it certainly wouldn't be a new mix. They didn't do that with the 5,1 mix because it would be impossible. The same way if a master was in mono, you can take the tracks and create a real stereo mix. That's what the leap from stereo to 5.1 is like. You can't have a 5.1 master without remixing it. It seems that they even did a new stereo mix as well from the "multi track masters" so I don't see what the argument is. Also I'm very far from an expert in the recording process but this sounds ike common sense to me. |
john bodega 07.03.2006 14:30 |
kdj2hot, quit while you're ahead. |
Sunshine 07.03.2006 14:51 |
And again: can anyone give an honest answer to this: It sounds marvellous but can you hear the difference at a normal stereo installation? I mean, I have a Marantz amplifier and B&W speakers, no surround or anything. I think I have a medium kind of set, not bad but also not amazing. Can you hear the difference or do you also need state of the art equipment? I have the 1993 remaster, is it helpful to buy the new version? |
Adam Baboolal 07.03.2006 15:20 |
Hey sunshine. Get the latest release as it surpasses the 1993 one by quite a bit. Thanks to Togg for that wonderful quote. I wish I'd known about that as that explains it perfectly! Kd, let's just drop all this as you believe what you believe and are not willing to take on what you're being told. If you want to pursue this, my advice is to go to the source. Send an email to Justin Shirley Smith and you will get THE definitive answer and only then will you realise what the answer truly is. The 5.1 mix is just that, a newly created mix from the original elements that came from the multitracks (remixed 192kHz files in Pro Tools). The stereo remaster, as explained by JustinSS, comes from the flat mix master with all the correct trimmings. That is transferred digitally. But apart from being at 24-bit, I'm not sure of the details. Peace, Adam. |
Adam Baboolal 07.03.2006 15:53 |
<b><font color = "crimson">ThomasQuinn wrote:Don't worry, it's my last post in this thread.kdj2hot wrote: Also I'm very far from an expert in the recording process but this sounds ike common sense to me.(I'm not responding to the rest, seeing as it's not worth bothering) Clearly. Sadly for you, Adam IS. |
Farrokh The Great 07.03.2006 16:07 |
Hi everybody Im “new” here (only reading your comments about six years ago) Once again... It’s a little hard to me write in english On16 bits normal cd editions each analog audio signal is divided on 65, 536 digital intervals On 24 bits especial cd editions each analog signal is divided on 16, 777, 216 digital intervals So if You put attention, you will notice that there is a big difference Please lets put aside 5.1 surround mix and DVD-A 2002 edition, let’s talk about 24bits STEREO audio editions (I feel music is meant for 2.0 not multi-channel. DTS/DD is for movies. Stereo is for music), there are ONLY two options: Japanese EMI-Toshiba 2001-2004 and last 30th anniversary (stereo mode) editions. 24 bits audio remasters enhances the soundstage a lot (term soundstage means that when listening, the musicians sound as if they are out in front of you), but they as well enhances the faults maybe because there’s “NEW” audio information that wasn’t present on 16 bits formats, and one fault are mainly awful: distortion on most percussion and some drums parts, this can be heard on 2004 (2001) Japanese EMI-Toshiba remaster, distortion is present due to it wasn’t restored, it was only transferred to 24 bits. I already know that 30Th ANATO edition was restored but a question worth asking: Does the ANATO 30th anniversary edition (IN STEREO MODE) is distortion-free on percussions and drums?????????????????? Thanks a lot and Cheers P.S. Only The miracle (and possibly Innuendo) Japanese 24 bits 2001-2004 editions are distortion free and sounds GREAT !!!!! |
goinback 07.03.2006 20:20 |
Hmmm I'll have to check the drums on my copy. I honestly don't notice a whole lot of difference between the stereo CD and my Hollywood Records one. I'm thinking the Prophet's Song might have a better lower end, because it always sounded like it had too much treble and hiss to me like it was recorded off a cassette. And I'd probably notice more if I played it through headphones. I don't know that I'd rebuy the CD just for the regular stereo CD. But the 5.1 mix is really cool, hearing all the different things separated :) Also just because something's been remastered doesn't mean it has or hasn't been remixed...it depends on how far back in tape generations they went (whether they went back to the multitracks or not). |
Togg 08.03.2006 03:52 |
kdj2hot wrote:Look KD, not only are you far from being an expert, it would appear you can't read...<b><font color = "crimson">ThomasQuinn wrote: kdj2hot: A word of advice; if there's ANYONE on here who knows what he's talking about regarding audio processing, mixing, mastering, etc., it's Adam. I'll spell it out for you simply, and I'm not going to bother with any niceties, seeing as your behaviour was highly impolite in the first place. Part of the MASTERING PROCESS involves taking the SEPARATE TRACKS of a MIXED master tape and equalizing them, adding stereo (or surround) effects, removing glitches, reducing analogue or digital noise (such as in extremely high or low parts of the spectrum, or in some Wall Of Sound-cases), etc. So, can you grasp that, or should I explain it to you like you were three?Obviously you can't grasp it because you said absolutely nothing. They did the 5,1 mix from the original multi tracks. Get off you high horse you're arguing about nothing. Maybe you're confused because you got the idea of a remix as being something like the Bicycle Race remix from the hollywood release. I like the fact that you said absolutely nothing and then finished it with "can you grasp that" like let off like a Stephen HAwkins type lecture or something. That was funny lol. Wait you did say something, something which kind ofd sounds stupid, no offense. Each multi track placed together as liked equals the master, in the sense that it's being ddiscussed in this thread. If you change the level of something, make the drums more prominent, etc. That's another mix. I guess you can argue that each track from a song is a "master track" but that's like grasping at straws. Ofcourse they're the master of that particular track because I doubt that they would be able to mix the track in itself again. The tracks placed together is a mix... wait a minute Thomas, your post was so out of it that I'm responding to something I never even argued about. I never questioned anyone's definition of a master. I just pointed out that to get to a new master you would have to mix it the track again. In definition that's what a new or remaster is. If it's not it would'nt be a new master. Now if they just take the master (the "multi track masters" as you called them, placed together) and make tapes directly from that instead of making tapes from copies of copies then it certainly wouldn't be a new mix. They didn't do that with the 5,1 mix because it would be impossible. The same way if a master was in mono, you can take the tracks and create a real stereo mix. That's what the leap from stereo to 5.1 is like. You can't have a 5.1 master without remixing it. It seems that they even did a new stereo mix as well from the "multi track masters" so I don't see what the argument is. Also I'm very far from an expert in the recording process but this sounds ike common sense to me. My quote from JUSTIN, the man who did it, explains how it IS/WAS done, and it follows Adams explaination to the letter. Please re-read it so that you understand. |
Farrokh The Great 08.03.2006 17:31 |
Hi, excuse my english again... You don’t need a great audio equipment to notice that 24 bit remasters are great, although I can only talk about The miracle (and almost sure that Innuendo too) Japanese 2001-2004 editions, even Japanese 24 bits AKOM edition sounds awful on percussions mainly. Specifically talking, 24 bits means much better mids and incredible deep bass. In case of The miracle album I got both English DDD (16 bits) and 24 bits Japanese EMI-Toshiba 2001-2004 editions, at my point of view there’s a huge difference, but ANATO is another history because it need to be restored. Greetings |
inu-liger 08.03.2006 22:23 |
Farrokh the great wrote: Hi, excuse my english again... You don’t need a great audio equipment to notice that 24 bit remasters are great...Exactly, and it doesn't just apply to remastered recordings....it really helps newer music sound more natural. Case in point: From middle January until around the beginning of February, I was helping my friend's band record their demos using expensive equipment that made it possible to record in 96/24 quality from the start, although we had to use a 96/32 setting in Adobe Audition 1.5 since for some reason, it doesn't use 24-bit settings for Recording, which is odd considering it allows for 16-, 24-, and 32-bit editing and mixing altogether. But anyways, when we (*me and the guitarist that I'm friends with) listened to the multitracks, both track-by-track individually and mixed down, we agreed that, even on flat monitor speakers, it sounded more natural and more nice sounding than when they used to do 44.1/16 quality demos in stereo through the standard PC sound card, although those old demos sounded nice in themselves (shame that only a handful seem to exist only in MP3 format now, I think). Long point short: I definitely agree 24-bit music, especially with 96kHz+ quality, sounds much better than straight 16-bit (re-)masters. That's my 2 cents. |